'Big Man' tackles fare dodging teenager on train

Vonhelmet · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:47

Nevakonaza said:
Even though the teenager should have paid his way,The big guy had no right to grab and throw him around like he did in this vid,Surely thats assault?

Yep, it probably is. Anyone think anyone will charge him with it? Anyone gonna convict him? Not likely.

LeJosh · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:47

Malc said:
I missed this.

I wouldn't be able to say if the situation was going to get violent or not.

I didn't say it would happen indefinitely. However, I still believe that people such as that young guy won't give up and are incredibly stubborn in a situation of wrong doing. I've seen it happen many many times first hand. They refuse to give up, swearing and shouting and eventual physical altercations occur. And to add, the big man used enough force to remove him from his seat and take him to the door, to which the young man was repeatadly trying to barge his way back. Without having paid for the correct ticket nor offering to repair his initial wrong doings.

The fact is it wasn't violent at the time the guy stepped in. Whilst it was technically the conductor's right to stop the train and halt paying passengers as well as one problem passenger, there are other things that have already been discussed that he could have done to prosecute the non paying passenger.

As soon as he swore and knew that he was in the wrong by ignoring what the conductor was saying to him, he didn't deserve any less than what the big man did. There are other ways of course but in context, it was handled well and First have already said that public intervention is not welcomed. I believe it in this situation.

What you've said is a possibility. That doesn't mean anything though. The kid could have also gone into hyperglycaemic shock. After all as well as being angry he's also diabetic.

What does being diabetic got to do with his attitude and actions toward a conductor?

Jono8 · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:48

Mark3h said:
Anyone who thinks the big guy did the wrong thing, are why this country is in such a sorry state when it comes to dealing with these kind of people.

Agreed

Biohazard · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:49

Ahleckz said:
To go back to this, I know it was intended as a bit of a throwaway comment but I do wonder if Scottish people are less prepared to sit around and accept things in quite the way as our friends down South?

I get that impression sometimes but I have relatively limited exposure to English society to the same extent of Scottish so it's hard to say objectively.

I think attitudes are different but it is no way absolute, nor is either really better than the other. Both have potential benefits and pitfals in any event.

Very hard to quantify though beyond and it's all entirely dependent upon circumstances.

Wha's like us though? Damn few an' they're a' deid!

Malc · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:52

Vonhelmet said:
You miss my point. You basically said that the crime of "depriving a company of their profits" (which is generally known as "theft") is not one that is worth stopping.

So I'm going to buy a gun and commit some robberies. After all, I'm only depriving businesses of their profits, and that's A-OK.

You missed my point. I was responding to .Lethal who equated mugging with this crime. My point was not paying a company some fare is a non violent crime that shouldn't be responded to in the same way as a mugging an individual.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering anyway. Earlier in the thread someone equated this to rape as well.

Ahleckz · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:56

Biohazard said:
I get that impression sometimes but I have relatively limited exposure to English society to the same extent of Scottish so it's hard to say objectively.

I think attitudes are different but it is no way absolute, nor is either really better than the other. Both have potential benefits and pitfals in any event.

Very hard to quantify though beyond and it's all entirely dependent upon circumstances.

Wha's like us though? Damn few an' they're a' deid!

Quite. I wonder if any of the English folk could give their opinion on it.

Malc · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:00

LeJosh said:
What does being diabetic got to do with his attitude and actions toward a conductor?

The kid is supposedly diabetic (he had insulin in his bag). There is a chance he could go to in to a diabetic fit. There is also a chance he could have started to get violent. There is also a chance...etc etc

Basically there are any number of eventualities that could have happened. By making the proceedings physical on a hunch that it could get violent is a risky move by the BigGuy and frankly the wrong way to solve this. Had the proceedings actually got violent, then you don't stand by and let a fellow human get beat up. They didn't.

LeJosh · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:02

I had other points but you've obviously missed them out.

No worries, to games I play.

Biohazard · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:07

Malc said:
The kid is supposedly diabetic (he had insulin in his bag). There is a chance he could go to in to a diabetic fit. There is also a chance he could have started to get violent. There is also a chance...etc etc

Basically there are any number of eventualities that could have happened. By making the proceedings physical on a hunch that it could get violent is a risky move by the BigGuy and frankly the wrong way to solve this. Had the proceedings actually got violent, then you don't stand by and let a fellow human get beat up. They didn't.

It got violent because he charged the guy to get back on the train.. sure it will have annoyed him no doubt but it should be clear by that point that it isn't happening.

I know people with diabetes and have seen them in various states of attacks and while I accept people react differently I do not see any symptoms in that lad beyond not being able to produce a valid travel ticket. Potential low sugar levels doesn't excuse that, nor does it excuse his curt abuse afterwards.

I think it's a bit of an excuse to be honest with you.

Malc · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:11

Nah I saw your points and theyve kind if previously been explained. Also I don't want to hypothesise on what the kid could have started to do. I'd rather deal with actualities.

Angilion · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:14

Vonhelmet said:
He would obviously have used the ticket while travelling in the other direction. How on earth would he have come by the ticket if not that way? I don't get on the train at Atherton asking for a single from Wigan back to Atherton when I'm on my way out to Wigan, do I?

His explanation, which is plausible, is that he bought two singles instead of one return because it was cheaper and that instead of getting a single each way he got two singles for the same direction.

So...

Travel A to B on single from A to B, have ticket clipped, stamped, whatever. Throw ticket away at B.

Travel B to A on single from B to A...but there's been a mistake and you've got a second single from A to B instead.

Maybe he's lying, maybe that's what happened. It's plausible. Train fares are sometimes weird and a single each way for particular times might be cheaper than a return valid for the day. There could be a misunderstanding resulting in getting two singles for the same direction rather than one single each way.

Vonhelmet · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:16

Angilion said:
His explanation, which is plausible, is that he bought two singles instead of one return because it was cheaper and that instead of getting a single each way he got two singles for the same direction.

So...

Travel A to B on single from A to B, have ticket clipped, stamped, whatever. Throw ticket away at B.

Travel B to A on single from B to A...but there's been a mistake and you've got a second single from A to B instead.

Maybe he's lying, maybe that's what happened. It's plausible. Train fares are sometimes weird and a single each way for particular times might be cheaper than a return valid for the day. There could be a misunderstanding resulting in getting two singles for the same direction rather than one single each way.

Well, even if that had happened... He still wouldn't have had a valid ticket for the journey he was making.

Biohazard · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:17

Malc said:
Nah I saw your points and theyve kind if previously been explained. Also I don't want to hypothesise on what the kid could have started to do. I'd rather deal with actualities.

Which is nae train ticket pal.

LeJosh · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:18

Biohazard said:
Which is nae train ticket pal.

Malc · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:18

Biohazard said:
I know people with diabetes and have seen them in various states of attacks and while I accept people react differently I do not see any symptoms in that lad beyond not being able to produce a valid travel ticket. Potential low sugar levels doesn't excuse that, nor does it excuse his curt abuse afterwards.

I think it's a bit of an excuse to be honest with you.

The diabetes thing was just an example of what could have happened, he also could have got violent. Both are possibilities (of varying probabilities). I'm not saying he's ever going to go into shock and I agree with you, it's probably an excuse on the kid's part to gain sympathy. I'm also definitely not saying give this kid an easier time because he's diabetic, before anyone takes my quote out of context!

Vonhelmet · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:19

Malc said:
You missed my point. I was responding to .Lethal who equated mugging with this crime. My point was not paying a company some fare is a non violent crime that shouldn't be responded to in the same way as a mugging an individual.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering anyway. Earlier in the thread someone equated this to rape as well.

It's still a crime, and one that was stopped by the chap who intervened.

Malc · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:20

Biohazard said:
Which is nae train ticket pal.

Hahaha

True and definitely wrong.

Lets not go round in a circle again

Biohazard · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:21

Angilion said:
His explanation, which is plausible, is that he bought two singles instead of one return because it was cheaper and that instead of getting a single each way he got two singles for the same direction.

So...

Travel A to B on single from A to B, have ticket clipped, stamped, whatever. Throw ticket away at B.

Travel B to A on single from B to A...but there's been a mistake and you've got a second single from A to B instead.

Maybe he's lying, maybe that's what happened. It's plausible. Train fares are sometimes weird and a single each way for particular times might be cheaper than a return valid for the day. There could be a misunderstanding resulting in getting two singles for the same direction rather than one single each way.

Returns are cheaper of course...

Malc · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:33

Vonhelmet said:
It's still a crime, and one that was stopped by the chap who intervened.

I'm out. We've been through this.

Before I go. The BigGuy is a hero. We should bring back the workhouses to teach the youth of today a lesson as society is going down the pan. Rape is as bad as mugging which is as bad as not buying a train ticket and should all be stopped by an elite team of vigilantes dressed as Judge Dread.

.Lethal · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:34

Malc said:
What? How about let's not put a blanket rule on things. The situation on the train was very much a vocal matter that could have been solved with nobody getting hurt and using the transport police. The man stepping in didn't actually help anything. Stepping in to stop a mugging would obviously help the victim.

The train incident wasnt going to get violent. If anything the guy stepping in made it slightly violent. A mugging has already transcended the gap from vocal to physical and therefore stepping in and using appropriate force is likely to help calm the situation down. Obviously nothing is certain though but at least the intent of the helper would be right. You couldn't argue that morally someone stepping in to stop a mugging isn't doing the right thing. They also wouldn't be increasing the level of offense.

Also the guy on the train was actually just harming a company's profits. A mugger would be physically and emotionally harming an individual.

On numerous occasions you have made statement to various scenarios that the boy could have been in. Yet now you're certain that a drunk teenager would not have got violent?

The "big man" used moderate force to prevent anything escalating further. The boy also wasn't hurt, and the "big man" didn't start throwing punches. It wasn't excessive and it was warranted. You don't see the "big man" getting arrested for assault now do you? I mean the video evidence is there for the Police to see.

You don't hear the boy's father making the sort of fuss that you are.

As for your emotion harming comment, who are you to say that the old man asking for a ticket isn't emotionally effected after this confrontation?